Hindus believe the world is aural vibration. Books like The Secret say the highest concentration of vibration is in the mammals' brain. Anyway, in speaking of energy and "struggles of the mind", Teilhard writes of:

"A sense of spatial immensity, in greatness and smallness, disarticulating and spacing out, within a speed of indefinite radius, the orbits of the objects which press around us;
A sense of depth, pushing back laboriously through endless series and measureless distances of time, which a sort of sluggishness of mind tends continually to condense for us in a thin layer of the past;
A sense of number, discovering and grasping unflinching the bewildering multitude of material or living elements involved in the slightest change in the universe;
A sense of proportion, realizing as best we can the difference of physical scale which separates, both in rhythm and dimension, the atom from the nebula, the infinitesimal from the immense; A sense of quality, or all novelty, enabling us to distinguish in nature certain absolute stages of perfection and growth, without upsetting the physical unity of the world;
A sense of movement, capable of perceiving the irresistibly developments hidden in extreme slowness -extreme agitation concealed beneath a veil of immobility-the entirely new insinuating itself into the heart of the monotonous reputation of the same things;
A sense, lastly, of the organic, discovery.physical links and structural unity under the superficial juxtaposition of succession and collectivities."

Clarification: MU I believe is arguing for purpose teleology implanted by a Prime Moving Personlity (or 3 such, idn yet)

When I was losing my faith (17-18), I prayered to God as sincerely as anyone else. Nothing. Typical to blame the "sinner" for lack of sincerety instead of the "deity" for not existing. "You will know them from their fruit". Christianity is one stage of development. It is a stepping stone to more

No he wont

There is no clear prophecy which we know was written before AD which could not have been deliberately fulfilled by Jesus and which came true. Reality check. Also, every religion on earth has miracles. Making miracle claims are part of what religions to. They don't prove anything about a supernatural order

Bergson was not a theist. Also, teenage Christians are told by their parents to "rebel against everything that is not Christian

Modern physics is open to interpretation. Relational theory of time seems correct, although I reject relational theory of space

Time in Bergsonian sense is real. I agree with Aristotle, Augustine, Aquimas, and Leibniz that time is a mental thing, something not outside us. Smartguy has 6 posts and is already being dogmatic

If there were pure randomness, it could create the most beautiful or the most ugly of universes

All I've done is apply Freudian.and Jungian thinking to the obviously strange psychology of most Christians. They are stuck in the archetype of the common man (are all basically Sam from the Lord of the Rings, a whole legion of them!). Since Nietzsche is valid conversation topic, so is what I've said. My clear reasoning was called juvenile and so I pointed out most Christians are juvenile. And they never turn then other cheek i notice btw

Time doesnt ezist but if it did it would show an encased series of causes. No need for "Pure Actuality"

Up to a point, but CORRELATE ALL THE STUDIES EVER DONE seems like a very tall order — Bitter Crank

There are those with an archivist bent (I know this from the music industry). Reviewing old studies can be productive, especially in developing health care for the elderly. Those studies are from their generation, their moment of evolution

I sometimes consider poetry to be a form of philosophy. Didn't Shiller say there is more wisdom in children books than philosophy books? And I think Freud said psychology is always one step ahead of philosophy. Then there is physics. Is theoretical physics just philosophy because it doesn't deal with experiments directly? All these ideas can be very perplexing

I think those terms are translations from the past. Scientists have to have something in mind that they already think is true and look for stats to back it up. You can't throw out old studies as "outdated". You have to correlate all the studies ever done on the subject. Not should they assume people act normally in a study, nor should they reject common knowledge as anecdotal

Is cosmology vertical or horizontal for you generally

Nothingness for me is Yin

I get your point. People on other threads got mad a me for using Jungian psychology of their religious beliefs. I've never claimed a piece of land as my definite position on anything. I am here to learn. I've had many debates in person with my own therapists. They are often confused by my philosophical explanations that counter their interpretations. I am bipolar. Meds I have found are useful. But psychiatry experiments of people. If you give someone (like me) an antipsychotic (Rexulti) and a mood stabilizer (say lithium), you have created a a new drug called Rexulti-Lithium. Which has not been approved in studies by the FDA. Hey, the medication cocktail works for me, and many other people. I don't know why though. I don't know the science well enough. But I know that combining several psychoactive substances is basically having a novel prescription which has not been studied in clinical trials. Much of psychiatry and psychology is not rigorous for me. So I simply proposed the belief of an ancestors a hypothesis that might yield fruit

Yes, some of it is sound. But much of it is cultural interpretation. They also assume people act themselves while in a study

Modern psychology can't prove most of its claims. If someone cares to give some examples of things psychology has proven, let's discuss them

In defense of what I said, I have the right to talk about psychology on this forum. And the right to speak of the spiritual as psychological. Political correctness does not.perfectly apply here. In defense of myself, I'm a spine snapper. No Christian in the sense of Christian has any power of me. I have power over them

The

It's sounds like Schopenhauer, your last post that is. Interesting idea. Does uncaused cause come from nothing. And can nothing be a power?

I think all algorithm's are strange loops and are as such faulty

Your warning has no power

Interesting! Teilhard wrote "In its origin to arrangements of a single initial corpuscular type is the beacon of light that lights the history of the universe to our eyes."

DNA is now in a form of 4. There are 4 dimensions in the universe. 4 temperaments makes sense to me

Randomness is matter completely free. Free will in humans is pure spontaneity. Determinalism might be true. Aquinas would have become a Calvinist before he's go be a Molonist camp. We are all trying to figure this stuff out

Word salad paragraph. You don't know what random is! So you think you know it's relation to spontaneity?....

There could be a beginning, or there could not. Gravity, friction, and other principles govern it. How is not why. I don't care for the "why is there something rather than nothing". The answer could be because 1 is greater than zero, and loving life is better than nonexistent. There is no need to go into divine realms for an answer

If you want to argue that this specific example is deterministic, that's fine. You don't seem to understand what the word random even means though. This is typical of Thomists

How does chance cause that person, rather than another person, to win? — Metaphysician Undercover

Isn't that obvious??

Assuming adults are better thinkers, it follows that fairness is a notion that makes sense i.e. is a rational belief to hold. — TheMadFool

Perhaps, unless there is a next step (enlightenment?) were you realize fairness was a false concept all along. It's difficult to decide one way or another

According to Hume though, we have no way of knowing for sure that an effect is caused by its precedent. — Gnomon

We can know we are the cause of picking up a ball because we can feel the causality in action. But seeing an avalanche is different. We can't sense what is causing what. In developing my materialistic version of cosmology, I've totally disregarded the idea of time. Time is a mental thing, something Bergsonian. It has nothing to do with matter. There is simply the first pull of gravity on matter and the following actions after that. Everything is mechanistic. There is nothing before the first pull of gravity because time doesn't exist outside our brains. What physicists call "time" is really a form of energy

tries to argue that actions like the river running are accidental, or chance acts. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well I do think that chance can be a cause

No, a causeless cause is the only logical conclusion. It is logically impossible for there not to be a causeless cause, even within the idea of a causal loop. That is because there is still the question, "Why is there a causal loop, instead of there not being a causal loop?" The answer cannot be found inside the loop, except for the fact it exists. There is no prior explanation as to why it exists, therefore it is a causeless cause. — Philosophim

Sometimes there are just brute facts. Why are you you instead of me? It's just the way it is. In logic, there cannot be complete relativism. There has to be the over arching truth the everything besides the arch, is relative. This doesn't apply to the universe though. Causes can simply go back in time forever with no end.

Intentional means colloquially "by intent". As opposed to a river running down a mountain

It's when you stretch someone's thought in a way were you can slip in an idea (a seed) which they would regard as true

Also, in the future when you write in the Thomistic method, know you are making illegal moves all over the chess board

Matter is only a mystery because it can be broken down into energy. You say The Good must be what makes things intelligible. So... God. Of course you can say he is necessary, but I can respond that matter is dualistic and both contingent and necessary. You would counter with arguments of passivity and actualiy, but I'm never impressed when Feser and the crowd try this. I don't think they thought it through all the way to nowhere's end

I'm thinking that matter is an emergence from a vibration that is not full extension in itself

It's the opposite of communism

Some interpret this parable to mean "don't be jealous of baptized infants who go to heaven without struggle even though you had to struggle". I've never heard of someone being jealous of an infant that died, so this can't be the explanation. Again, I think it means "equal punishments, unequal rewards"